82,891
edits
Stakeholder capitalism: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
Amwelladmin (talk | contribs) No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{a|devil| | {{a|devil|{{image|Stakeholder capitalism|png|}} }}=== Adam Smith’s Dangerous Idea === | ||
Once upon a time, not long ago, [[shareholder]]s were opaque, sacred beings. Ineffable, invisible, immortal and divine: to their improving ends the company’s mortal [[agent|stewards]] twitched their every fibre. | Once upon a time, not long ago, [[shareholder]]s were opaque, sacred beings. Ineffable, invisible, immortal and divine: to their improving ends the company’s mortal [[agent|stewards]] twitched their every fibre. | ||
| Line 123: | Line 123: | ||
Of course the disenfranchised minorities at the margins of our community need a voice. As we argue [[Critical theory|elsewhere]], an optimal society is pluralistic, tolerant, defends those at the margins and, [[all other things being equal]], prefers their interests when they conflict with a majority that is perfectly able to look after itself. But the question is not ''whether'' to protect their interests, but ''how''. There are plenty of better ways than through stakeholder capitalism: representative democracy, for a start. | Of course the disenfranchised minorities at the margins of our community need a voice. As we argue [[Critical theory|elsewhere]], an optimal society is pluralistic, tolerant, defends those at the margins and, [[all other things being equal]], prefers their interests when they conflict with a majority that is perfectly able to look after itself. But the question is not ''whether'' to protect their interests, but ''how''. There are plenty of better ways than through stakeholder capitalism: representative democracy, for a start. | ||
[[File:Water scarcity.png|300px|thumb|right|Or you could spend more time managing your loan book? Just a thought]] | |||
But even so, beyond their shareholding, shareholders are not monolithic investing homunculi: they are ordinary people with disposable income. If they want to beautify the inner city, save polar bears or fight water scarcity, they can do that ''directly''. There are charities whose very mandate is to agitate for just that. That is a far better way to allocate capital. It puts control in the investors’ hands, where it should be. Investors do not need to channel their charitable activity through the medium of their equity portfolio. And why would they? | But even so, beyond their shareholding, shareholders are not monolithic investing homunculi: they are ordinary people with disposable income. If they want to beautify the inner city, save polar bears or fight water scarcity, they can do that ''directly''. There are charities whose very mandate is to agitate for just that. That is a far better way to allocate capital. It puts control in the investors’ hands, where it should be. Investors do not need to channel their charitable activity through the medium of their equity portfolio. And why would they? | ||
| Line 134: | Line 135: | ||
Now — if we allow for a cynical moment that it might be true — ask yourself this: is it wise to delegate responsibility for working out our moral priorities to a small group of entitled people with a plausibly heightened propensity towards psychopathic behaviour? For isn’t that what stakeholder capitalism essentially advocates? | Now — if we allow for a cynical moment that it might be true — ask yourself this: is it wise to delegate responsibility for working out our moral priorities to a small group of entitled people with a plausibly heightened propensity towards psychopathic behaviour? For isn’t that what stakeholder capitalism essentially advocates? | ||
As they have | [[File:Lulu Lemon.jpg|300px|thumb|right|Lulu Lemon has questions about its customers, apparently.]] | ||
As they have shrunk from their shareholders’ best interests, corporations have become increasingly moralistic in public. No doubt this partly panders to the customers: you can’t fault a costless and oblique attempt to boost shareholder returns by telling customers what you think they want to hear, though the data suggests the customers don’t really care for it.<ref>[https://www.thepullagency.com/blog/is-your-brand-too-woke/ Is Your Brand Too Woke?] Chris Bullick, Pull Agency, 2022.</ref> | |||
Corporations are not our moral guardians. We don’t need them to be, we don’t ''want'' them to be and, though many executives seem minded to think otherwise, they are just not any good at it. <ref>The Department of Justice recently launched [https://www.justice.gov/corporate-crime/corporate-crime-case-database the Corporate Crime database]. This should help keep things in perspective.</ref> Wouldn’t it be better to accept them for the flawed, return-generating machines they are, however imperfectly propelling that old invisible hand, and leave the do-gooding to those who are? | |||
{{sa}} | {{sa}} | ||